Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Holo3-35B-A3B
100
Qwen3.6-27B
73
Verified leaderboard positions: Holo3-35B-A3B unranked · Qwen3.6-27B #18
Pick Holo3-35B-A3B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.6-27B only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 262K context window or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Agentic
+23.3 difference
Holo3-35B-A3B
Qwen3.6-27B
$null / $null
$0 / $0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
64K
262K
Pick Holo3-35B-A3B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.6-27B only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 262K context window or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Holo3-35B-A3B is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 100 to 73. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Holo3-35B-A3B's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 82.6 against 59.3.
Qwen3.6-27B is the reasoning model in the pair, while Holo3-35B-A3B is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Qwen3.6-27B gives you the larger context window at 262K, compared with 64K for Holo3-35B-A3B.
Holo3-35B-A3B is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 100 to 73.
Holo3-35B-A3B has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 82.6 versus 59.3. Qwen3.6-27B stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.